[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Footnote documentation error

From: Mark Mathias
Subject: Re: Footnote documentation error
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2012 23:12:08 -0400

So... as far as the Bug Squad is concerned, are we still waiting for something or does this need to get added to the tracker?

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:52 AM, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
On Apr 20, 2012, at 7:40 AM, James wrote:

> Hello,
> On 20 April 2012 00:40, Nick Payne <address@hidden> wrote:
>> The documentation at
>> for
>> both automatic and manual footnotes says that the \footnote command must
>> come *before* the grob to which the footnote is being attached. This doesn't
>> seem to be the case. Here the \footnote commands are after the notes to
>> which they are attached, and they work fine:
> I think this was to do with David's additional work on Mike's a few
> months ago when what he did changed the requirement from the original
> footnote document in earlier versions of 2.15. We did re-write much of
> the examples and obviously missed this.

I actually think this has something to do with David's work on the parser (could be wrong...).

This is the postfix variety of footnote, or the one that does not need to specify a grob and assigns the footnote to whatever grob is created by the first event that comes down the pipe.  I'm actually amazed that it works, as the NoteHead is facultative - if you replaced it w/ Stem it'd do the same thing (meaning footnote the NoteHead).

lilypond-user mailing list

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]